SGST And CGST Dept. Must Coordinate to Avoid Parallel Adjudication: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated the statutory bar on parallel GST proceedings by Central and State tax authorities on the same subject matter, while disposing of a writ petition filed by a steel manufacturer challenging multiple summons and notices issued by different GST authorities. The bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja has relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East in which lays down binding directions regarding the scope of ‘initiation of proceedings’, ‘subject- matter’, and the ‘inter-relationship between Central and State GST authorities’. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of various summons and notices issued by the Central GST authorities, including a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner contended that proceedings had already been initiated earlier by the State GST authorities on the same subject matter, and therefore, in view of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, the Central authorities were barred from initiating parallel proceedings. The core legal issue before the Court was the interpretation and application of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, which prohibits initiation of proceedings by one tax authority where proceedings on the same subject matter have already been initiated by another authority. The Bench noted that this issue is no longer res integra and stands conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in the Armour Security judgment, which laid down detailed principles on what constitutes “initiation of proceedings” and “same subject matter” under GST law. Relying extensively on paragraphs 96 and 97 of the Armour Security decision, the High Court observed that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only to parallel adjudicatory proceedings and not to investigative steps such as issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The Supreme Court has clarified that “initiation of proceedings” refers to formal commencement of adjudication through issuance of a show cause notice, and not to preliminary investigative actions like summons, search or seizure. The Court also took note of the submissions made on behalf of both the Central and State GST authorities, who assured the Court that they would strictly adhere to the statutory mandate under Section 6(2)(b) and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. It was submitted that appropriate coordination would be maintained between the authorities to ensure that the taxpayer is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory proceedings on the same cause of action. Referring to similar directions issued by other High Courts following the Armour Security ruling, the Bench observed that the appropriate course was to direct the petitioner to place its objections before the competent authorities, rather than quashing the notices outright. The Court emphasized that GST authorities must internally coordinate to determine which authority would carry the adjudication to its logical conclusion, thereby avoiding duplication and multiplicity of proceedings. The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Central GST authority, respond to the show cause notice, and raise all contentions, including the plea of bar under Section 6(2)(b), in terms of the Supreme Court’s judgment. The petitioner was also directed to comply with the summons issued and to inform the State authorities about the issuance of the show cause notice by the Central authority, as mandated by the Armour Security guidelines. The Court further directed the State and Central GST authorities to communicate with each other to verify the claim of overlapping proceedings and to ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter. Any further proceedings were ordered to be carried out strictly in accordance with law, after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or on the validity of the show cause notice and summons. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open, to be decided by the appropriate adjudicating authority in accordance with law and the binding precedent of the Supreme Court Case Details Case Title: M/s J.B. Rolling Mills Limited Versus UOI Case No.: Civil Writ Petition No.6358 of 2024 Date: 22/11/2025 Counsel For Appellant: Ajay Vaidya, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Narinder Singh Thakur Click Here To Read Order Read More: Repeated Dept. Adjournments: ITAT Extends Stay on Rs. 264 Crore Tax Demand Against JioStar India

Ask Jurishour AI

SGST And CGST Dept. Must Coordinate to Avoid Parallel Adjudication: Himachal Pradesh HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

S. 80P(4) No Bar to Deduction on Interest Earned From Co-operative Bank: ITAT

Dept. Can’t Fully Disbelieve Hospital’s Higher Cash Receipts During Demonetisation: ITAT Restricts Rs. 1.80 Crore Addition to Rs. 5 Lakh

GSTAT Admits ITC Dispute Over Alleged Retrospective Application of Section 16(2)(c) Amendment, Says Appeal Raises “Pure Question of Law”

Failure to Reverse ITC on Exempt Electricity Supply, Alleged Suppression U/S 74: GSTAT Admits Dept.’s Appeal

More like this

S. 80P(4) No Bar to Deduction on Interest Earned From Co-operative Bank: ITAT

Dept. Can’t Fully Disbelieve Hospital’s Higher Cash Receipts During Demonetisation: ITAT Restricts Rs. 1.80 Crore Addition to Rs. 5 Lakh

GSTAT Admits ITC Dispute Over Alleged Retrospective Application of Section 16(2)(c) Amendment, Says Appeal Raises “Pure Question of Law”

About us

Company

Categories